i'm seriously and sincerely trying to figure out and UNDERSTAND what i did or said that was a violation... i've read the link, but i still don't
see what specifically was violated.

would appreciate at least a hint if you wouldn't mind. In fact i can't even go back and look at what i wrote in the message that caused this. Would
be nice if mods could implement a policy or something in certain cases where the violation was explained or pointed out.

what egg shells were broken this time?

IMHO, seeking truth and healthy debate/intelligent discourse are the first casualty when you have to walk on eggshells this much.

apologies for whatever wasn't adhered to, but any info would be appreciated to make sure everything is within guidelines/rules in the future

A plane hits the ground at over 500 mph, the media report that the recorders and an engine were found embedded in the ground.

3000 dead, the WTC towers collapsed, the Pentagon struck, Wall Street is closed, America is going to war, and you think there is evidence of a
conspiracy because the media didn't make a big deal out of the quite understandable notion that when a plane hits the ground at a 40 degree angle
close to the speed of sound that some, most, alot, a bit, part of, or any piece is embedded in the ground? What is so amazing is that you think this
is amazing.

By the way, the thing about the assuming the passengers were also all embedded is, well, your assumption. The press really doesn't spend a lot of
time explain the rationale behind your assumptions.

Originally posted by hooper
you think there is evidence of a conspiracy because the media didn't make a big deal out of the quite understandable notion that when a plane hits
the ground at a 40 degree angle close to the speed of sound that some, most, alot, a bit, part of, or any piece is embedded in the ground?

Well, was it some, most, alot, a bit, part of, or any piece? It can't be all.

What is so amazing is that you think this is amazing.

So when did they realize that most of the plane was buried?

By the way, the thing about the assuming the passengers were also all embedded is, well, your assumption. The press really doesn't spend a
lot of time explain the rationale behind your assumptions.

Then where were most of the remains speculated to be before the cleanup started?

Well, was it some, most, alot, a bit, part of, or any piece? It can't be all.

Why does the adjective matter? Only you seem to really care.

So when did they realize that most of the plane was buried?

Who is they? Why would they have ever made this so-called "realization"? Think about it, you have crews scouring the landscape retrieving parts,
bits and pieces of the plane and a crew excavating the impact site - now do you really think they were sitting there and measuring the volume and
weight of each piece as they were collected and making a systematic comparison so as to accurately determine the ratio of embedded to non-embedded
remains just so they would satsify ATH911's repeated accusations?

Then where were most of the remains speculated to be before the cleanup started?

Why would anyone speculated about the ratio of human remains locations? WHY????

Again, how is speculation, pre-investigation, relevant to the subject?

If a detective is called to the scene of a murder, does the detective stand around outside the house and "speculate" on which room the body will be
found in before he/she goes starts the investigation?

Also, rhetorical question, the answer is no. Same as in Shanksville. Nobody stood around before they started searching and speculated about where
the remains would be found.

Originally posted by hooper
Also, rhetorical question, the answer is no. Same as in Shanksville. Nobody stood around before they started searching and speculated about where
the remains would be found.

Thanks again for showing how little you know about things like criminal investigations.

Tell you what, you show me where it is common practise at a crash scene investigation where everyone stands around speculating about the ratios and
locations of the remains before they actually start looking for them.

Again, rhetorical question, they don't and I speculate that even you know that is a nonsensical concept.

Originally posted by hooper
Tell you what, you show me where it is common practise at a crash scene investigation where everyone stands around speculating about the ratios and
locations of the remains before they actually start looking for them.

Well it would be difficult since you do not seem to grasp even the very basics of crime scene investigations.

Again show me where it is common practise at a crash scene investigation where everyone stands around speculating about the ratios and locations of
the remains before they actually start looking for them.

Originally posted by hooper
Again show me where it is common practise at a crash scene investigation where everyone stands around speculating about the ratios and locations of
the remains before they actually start looking for them.

I guess you never heard of or seen CSI doing drawings of the scne BEFORE the investigation?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.